Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's only added behavioral value is noting the payload includes custom fields and sequence progress, which is modest but non-redundant context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the returned entity and its notable contents. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of dense, front-loaded guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries part of the burden of describing the return value; it gestures at custom fields and sequence progress but is otherwise thin. With two required UUID parameters fully documented in the schema, the tool is callable, but the returned shape and error behavior remain unclear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both leadId and campaignId are documented as UUIDs in the schema — so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, scoping, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase ('One lead of a campaign, with custom fields and sequence progress') rather than a verb+resource statement, relying on the name/title for the retrieval verb. It does convey what the tool returns — a single lead with its custom fields and sequence progress — but it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like get_lead_search, find_lead_by_email, or list_leads.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent lead-retrieval siblings (find_lead_by_email, get_lead_search, list_leads). The agent must infer that this is the direct lookup-by-id path from the required campaignId/leadId parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.